A4-6320 vs FX-6100

VS

Aggregate performance score

FX-6100
2011
6 cores / 6 threads, 95 Watt
2.32
+142%
A4-6320
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.96

FX-6100 outperforms A4-6320 by a whopping 142% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing FX-6100 and A4-6320 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking17972488
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency2.311.40
Architecture codenameZambezi (2011−2012)Richland (2013−2014)
Release date12 October 2011 (13 years ago)December 2013 (11 years ago)

Detailed specifications

FX-6100 and A4-6320 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores6 (Hexa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads62
Base clock speed3.3 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz4 GHz
L1 cache288 KB96 KB
L2 cache6 MB1024 KB
L3 cache8 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size315 mm2246 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data70 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data70 °C
Number of transistors1,200 million1,303 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on FX-6100 and A4-6320 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration11
SocketAM3+FM2
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6100 and A4-6320. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMA++
AVX++
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
VirusProtect-+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-6100 and A4-6320 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6100 and A4-6320. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3-1600
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon™ HD 8370D
Number of pipelinesno data128
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of FX-6100 and A4-6320 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by FX-6100 and A4-6320 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 11

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6100 and A4-6320.

PCIe version2.02.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FX-6100 2.32
+142%
A4-6320 0.96

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

FX-6100 3689
+141%
A4-6320 1530

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.32 0.96
Physical cores 6 2
Threads 6 2
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

FX-6100 has a 141.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

A4-6320, on the other hand, has 46.2% lower power consumption.

The FX-6100 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-6320 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6100 and A4-6320, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD FX-6100
FX-6100
AMD A4-6320
A4-6320

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 1098 votes

Rate FX-6100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 4 votes

Rate A4-6320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about FX-6100 or A4-6320, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.